PUBLICATION No. FHWA-IF-99-025 Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration DRILLED SHAFTS: CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES AND DESIGN METHODS da Office Of Infrastructure Printed August 1999NOTICE ‘The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the policy of ‘the Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specifications, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer’s names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the objective of this document.Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. FHWA-IF-99-025 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtidle Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods 4 Report Date August 1999 ‘6. Performing Organization Cod 7, Author) ', Performing Organization Report No. Michael W. O’Neil and Lymon C. Reese 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10, Work Unit No (TRAIS) a) All American Soils 17921 Sky Park Circle, Suite J Th. Coahad o: Goat No Irvine, CA 92614 DIFH61-96-Z-00051 1 Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Federal Highway Administration Office of Infrastructure/Office of Bridge Technology HIBT, Room 3203 400 7* Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 13 Type of Report and Period Covered Technical Manual 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15, Supplementary Notes COTR: Mr. Chien-Tan Chang Technical Assistance: Mr. Richard S. Cheney, P.E. Technical Review and Revision: Mr. Sumant Singla 16. Abstract ‘This manual is FHWA’s primary reference of recommended construction procedures and design methods for drilled shafts. This document was written as a resource for participants in a short course covering the topic of construction and design of drilled shaft foundations for bridges and other structures. It is the second edition of an FHWA workbook on construction and design of drilled shafts. The first edition was written in 1988 ( FHWA Publication No. FHWA-SA-HI-88-042), While introductory material from the 1988 edition was retained, the emphasis in this document is on providing relatively comprehensive information for engineers who already have some experience with drilled shaft construction and/or design. The initial chapters cover an overview of the characteristics of drilled shafts, site investigations for drilled shafts (to collect information for both construction and design), and details of drilled shaft construction. These chapters are followed by several chapters on the design of drilled shafts in soil and rock for both axial and lateral loading, with examples. Both allowable stress design and load and resistance factor design principles are addressed. Details of design calculations procedures are provided in the appendices. Procedures for performing load tests, an important component of design, are then reviewed, following which model construction specifications are presented and discussed. The latter chapters of the document deal with construction inspection, structural integrity testing, repair of defective drilled shafts and cost estimation. The chapter on inspection includes acceptance criteria and is intended to complement other short courses and documents on drilled shaft construction inspection. 17. Key Words Tf, Disubution Statement Foundations, Drilled Shafts, Construction, Design, | No restrictions. This document is available to the public Soil, Rock, Computations, Specifications from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 19, Security Classi. (ofthis report) 20, Security Classification (ofthis page) 72INo, of Pages | 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 758 Form DOT F 1100.7 (72) Reproduction of completed page authorizedPREFACE The Federal Highway Administration has produced two educational publications (in 1977 and 1988) on the construction and design of drilled shaft foundations. The second publication, Publication No. FHWA-HI-88-042, July 1988, has been used as the textbook to teach over 50 three-day short courses on drilled shafts in over 30 states between 1989 and 1998. However, drilled shaft technology has advanced rapidly since 1988, and it became necessary to revise and update this publication. This present publication is a new, expanded, edition of the 1988 publication, which it is intended to replace. New material contained in the present publication includes operations with polymer drilling slurries, admixtures for drilled shaft concrete, new drilling equipment, specifications for performing non-destructive evaluations, design in intermediate geomaterials and in rock, additional material on structural design, LRFD procedures, and methods for analyzing groups of drilled shafts. The main text addresses most common design and construction conditions. The appendices contain supporting material that may need to be used in certain circumstances and that gives foundation engineers detailed information not available in the text. It is intended that this publication serve as a living reference document that will be updated continually as further advances in the construction and design of drilled shafts take place. The authors express gratitude to Axiom Engineering and Science company, which compiled the text for this publication. They are also grateful to ADSC: The International Association of Foundation Drilling, its Executive Director, Mr. Scot Litke, and its technical review committee, chaired by Mr. Ed Nolan; Dr. Alaa Ata and Mr. Jose Arrellaga, who each reviewed all or parts of the document and provided considerable valuable input. The senior author also thanks his colleagues at the University of Houston, Dr. Cumaraswamy Vipulanadan and Dr. Sami Tabsh for their helpful comments about behavior of cementious materials and structural design of drilled shafts, respectively, and to many colleagues, too numerous to name here, who provided photographs. Michael W. O’Neill Lymon C. ReeseENGLISH TO METRIC (SI) CONVERSION FACTORS The primary metric (SI) units used in civil and structural engineering are: length : meter (m) mass : kilogram (kg) time : second (s) force - newton (N) or kilonewton (kN) pressure - pascal (Pa = N/m’) or kilopascal (kPa = KN/m?) ‘The following are the conversion factors for units presented in this manual: ‘To Metric | Multiply by | For ald to Quick (SD) Units Mental ss | Mass 1b kg, 0.453 592, T To(mass) Force 1b N 4448 22, Tibforee) =a. a kip kN, 4.448 22 1 kip(force) = 4,5kN Force/unit length | pif Nim 145939 T plf=14.5N7m kif kN/im 14,593 9 1 kif= 14,5kN/m_ Pressure, stress, | psf Pa 47.8803 T psf=48 Pa | modulus of ksf kPa 47.880 3 1 ksf=48 kPa elasticity psi kPa 6.894 76 ksi Mpa 6.894 76 Length inch mm 25.4 foot m 0.3048 mm 304.8 ‘Area square inch mim 645.16 square foot m 0,09290304 square yard m 0,83612736 1 sq yd = 0.84 m? Volume eubic inch mn 16386.064 Tew in = 16,400 mr cubic foot m 0.0283168 cubic yard 0.764555 Lou yd = 0.76 m? A few points to remember: 1. Ina “soft” conversion, an English measurement is mathematically converted to its exact metric equivalent, . Ina “hard” conversion, a new rounded, metric number is created that is convenient to work with and remember. el Use only the meter and millimeter fr length (avoid centimeter). . The pascal (Pa) is the unit for pressure and stress (Pa = N/m’). . Structural calculations should be shown in MPa or kPa. A few basic comparisons worth remembering to help visualize metric dimensions are: * One mm is about 1/25 inch or slightly less than the thickness of a dime. © One m is the length of a yardstick plus about 3 inches. ‘* One inch is just a fraction (1/64 inch) longer than 25 mm (1 inch = 25.4 mm). Four inches are about 1/16 inch longer than 100 mm (4 inches = 101.6 mm). ‘One foot is about 3/16 inch longer than 300 mm (12 inches = xv AVATABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION... TYPES OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS. DESCRIPTION OF DRILLED SHAFTS BRIEF HISTORY OF DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATIONS. MOTIVATION FOR USING DRILLED SHAFTS REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICE. Construction. Design for Axial Load Design for Lateral Load APPLICATIONS OF DRILLED . ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DRILLED SHAFTS. ‘Advantages Disadvantages TRAINING RESOURCE REFERENCES... CHAPTER 2: SITE CHARACTERIZATION .... seve PURPOSE OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION 22 SITE INVESTIGATIONS... General... Surface Features. Subsurface Pipelines, Cables, and Other Obstructions Preliminary Subsurface Mapping Detailed Site Investigations . TECHNIQUES FOR SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS... Information Required for Design. Information Required for Constructio Comments .. Full-Sized Test Excavations .. UNCERTAINTY IN SOIL OR ROCK PROPERTIES AT A SITE. EFFECTS OF PILES AND DRILLED SHAFTS ON SOIL AND ROCK PROPERTIES Installation in Clays Installation in Sands Installation in Rock SOIL AND ROCK MECHANI REFERENCES .... ATED TO DRILLED SHAFT DESIGN .. CHAPTER 3: GENERAL CONSTRUCTION METHODS .. INTRODUCTION .. UNDERREAMS (BELLS) VERTICAL ALIGNMENT. DRY METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION... CASING METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION. WET METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION. . iiiThe Static Process... METHOD TO DESIGN CHAPTER 4: METHODS OF EXCAVATION. EXCAVATION BY ROTARY METHODS. Truck-Mounted Drilling Machines Crane-Mounted Drilling Machines Special Mounts For Drilling Machines. Low Headroom Drilling Machines Summary of Rotary Drilling Machine Characteristics Tools for Rotary Drilling Drilling Bucket. Flight Augers (Open Helix) EXCAVATION BY PERCUSSION METHODS. Lifting Machine: Clamshell or Grab Bucket Rock Breakers Air-Operated Hammers Use of Drilling Fluid Grouting . Mining Techniques REFERENCES .. CHAPTER 5: CASINGS AND LINERS... INFLUENCE OF CASING ON LOAD TRANSFER. TYPES AND DIMENSIONS... PROBLEMS OF PLACEMENT AND RECO’ DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS REFERENCES ...CHAPTER 6: DRILLING SLURR’ INTRODUCTION ..... PRINCIPLES OF SLURRY OPERATION. Mineral Slurries Polymers... Blended Slurries Polymer Slurry.. Blended Slurry . Free Water and Cake Thickness Shear Strength... Comments on Field Testing of Drilling Slurrie MEASURING THE VOLUME OF THE EXCAVATION UNDER DRILLING SLURRY... EXCESSIVE EXPOSURE OF SOIL OR ROCK TO DRILLING SLURRY. DESIRABLE PROPERTIES OF DRILLING SLURRY .. INFLUENCE OF SLURRY ON AXIAL CAPACITY OF Soil and Rock Resistance Bond with Reinforcing Steel EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMS WITH SLURRY CONSTRUCTION TRAINING RESOURCE REFERENCES .. CHAPTER 7: REBAR CAGES INTRODUCTION PROPERTIES OF STEE! LONGITUDINAL REINFORCIN TRANSVERSE REINFORCING. CENTERING DEVICES. STRENGTHENING THE CAGE TO RESIST LIFTING FORCE! ARRANGEMENTS FOR LIFTING CAGE ..FABRICATION AND STORAGE.. CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO METHOD OF REFERENCES .. CHAPTER 8: DESIGN AND PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE... BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF DRILLED SHAFT CONCRETE MIX DESIGN Tests at the Batch Plant. Tests at the Jobsite .. Addition of Water at Job Site. 196 PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE 197 Placement by Free Fall .. . Placement of Concrete by Tremie .200 Placement by Gravity-Fed Tremi 201 Placement by Pump. 208 DRILLING NEAR A RECENTLY CONCRETED SHAFT 215 CONCRETING CURVES. 216 CONTAMINATED CONCRETE AT SHAFT HEAD 219 POST-GROUTING.. REFERENCES... CHAPTER 9: CASE STUDIES OF DRILLED SHAFT CONSTRUCTION UNDER ‘VARIOUS CONDITIONS. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 10: DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR DRILLED SHAFTS INTRODUCTION... The Design Process. Importance of subsurface Investigation Influence of Construction on Geomaterial Properties Cohesive Soil...Granular soil and Granular IGM’ Rock and Cohesive IGM’ Principal Design Considerations. GENERAL APPROACHED TO DESIGN Allowable Stress Design... Load and Resistance Factor Design Comparison of ASD and LRFD. COMPUTATION OF A NOMINAL ULTIMATE AXIAL RESISTANCE, Rr... Nominal Base Resistance, Raw Cohesive Soil Granular Soil and Cohesionless Intermediate Geomaterials Rock and Cohesive Intermediate Geomaterials Nominal Side Resistance, Ren .. Cohesive Soil Granular Soil and Cohesionless Intermediate Geomaterials Rock and Cohesive Intermediate geomaterials.. COMPUTAION OF DEFORMATIONS GROUPS OF DRILLED SHAFT! TOLERABLE MOVEMENTS STRUCTURAL DESIGN.. REFERENCES.. CHAPTER 11: GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN FOR AXIAL LOADING INTRODUCTION .. DIRECTION OF SIDE AND BASE RESISTANCE. DESIGN OF DRILLED SHAFTS UNDER AXIAL LOADING STEP-BY-STEP DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR AXIAL LOAD DESIG! REFERENCES. CHAPTER 12: DESIGN FOR VERTICAL MOVEMNET OF THE GROUND SURFACE... 97 INTRODUCTION .. Resistance ... Design Solutions 03, UPLIFT... 07 Occurrence and Identification of Expansive Soils. 07 Estimating the Depth of the Zone of Seasonal Moisture Change. 109 Design Solutions .. 10 RESOURCE.. 16 REFERENCES. 16 CHAPTER 13: DESIGN FOR LATERAL LOADING AND STRUCTURAL DESIGN INTRODUCTION .. EXAMPLES OF LATERAL LOADIN(Single-Column Support for a Bridge.. Foundation for an Overhead-Sign Structure Drilled-Shaft-Supported Bridge Over Water . Foundation for a Bridge Abutment. Foundation for an Arch Bridge Stabilization of a Moving Slope and Earth Retaining Structures COMPUTING PENETRATION, DEFORMATIONS, MOMENTS AND SHEARS... 27 Characteristic Load Method. 27 p-y Method 37 Simulation of Nonlinear Bei Using the p-y Method .. Simulation of Group Action Using the p-y Method . Other Methods of Analysis of Laterally Loaded Drilled Shafts Shaft Groups. 50 STRUCTURAL DESIGN.. 51 Cases with Axial Load Only 52 Cases with Axial Load and Bending Moment. 53 General Concepts. 53 Structural Design Procedure: Longitudinal Reinforcement. 54 Structural Design Procedure: Minimum Longitudinal Reinforcement... 362 Design of Transverse Reinforcement 63 Spiral Column Design. 63 Tied Column Design 366 Design for Transverse Shear Forces 367 Depth of Code-Controlled Transverse Reinforcement . 370 Splices, Connections and Cutoffs.... 370 Analysis to Obtain Distribution of Moment and Shear with Dep' Step-by-Step Procedure for Design (p-y method) . 371 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF PLAIN-CONCRETE UNDERREAMS. RESOURCES .. REFERENCES CHAPTER 14: FIELD LOADING TESTS. PURPOSE OF LOADING TESTS AXIAL LOADING TESTS Considerations in Sizing, Locating and Constructing the Test Shaft Methods of Applying Compressive Loads . Conventional Loading Test Arrangements. Osterberg Cell Testing Arrangement Statnamic® Testing Arrangement.. Conventional Uplift Testing . Instrumentation Load Transfer Test. viiiTesting Procedures. Data and Analysis LATERAL LOADING TESTS . Conventional Te: Osterberg Cell Test Statnamic® Te: "YPRS.OF. AON ONG O.WHICH — ra ICARL mm CHAP’ INTRODUCTION... Construction Method Drilling Slurry Payment for Shaft Excavation .. Qualification of Drilled Shaft Contractors for Bidding Special Bidding Requirement .. GUIDE DRILLED SHAFT CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS ITEM xxx. DRILLED SHAFTS. xxx.10 DESCRIPTIOI xxx.11 QUALIFICATI xocx.12 SUBMITTALS: ... xxx.13 TRIAL SHAFT INSTALLATIO! xxx.20 MATERIALS:. xxx.30 CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND EQUIPMENT: xxx.30.1 PROTECTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES: xxx,30,2 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE:. xxx.30.3 GENERAL METHODS AND EQUIPMI xxx.31 DRY CONSTRUCTION METHOD: xxx.32 WET CONSTRUCTION METHOD: xxx.33 CASING CONSTRUCTION METHOD: xxx.34 EXCAVATION AND DRILLING EQUIPMENT: xxx,35 EXCAVATIONS: xxx.35.1 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATIO) xxx.35.2 CLASSIFIED EXCAVATION: xxx.35.21 STANDARD EXCAVATION: xxx.35.22 SPECIAL EXCAVATIO xxx.36,2 PERMANENT CASIN‘ xxx.38 SLURRY: xxx.40 EXCAVATION INSPECTIOI xxx.41 CONSTRUCTION TOLERAN( ixxx.50 REINFORCING STEEL CAGE CONSTRUCTION AND PLACEMENT: xxx.60 CONCRETE PLACEMENT: xxx.61 TREMIES: xxx.62 PUMPED CONCRE’ xxx.63 DROP CHUTES: xxx,64 NONDESTRUCTIVE EVALUATIO! xxx.64.1 TESTS IN ACCESS TUBES:. xxx.64.2 SONIC ECHO TESTS: xxx,70 DRILLED SHAFT LOAD TESTS: xxx.71 METHOD OF MEASUREMEN’ xxx.71,1 FURNISHING DRILLED SHAFT DRI xxx.71.2 DRILLED SHAFTS: xxx.71.5 UNCLASSIFIED SHAFT EXCAVATION: 200.71.6 UNCLASSIFIED EXTRA DEPTH EXCAVATION xxx.71.7 OBSTRUCTION! xxx.71.8 TRIAL SHAFT: xxx.71.9 EXPLORATION (SHAFT EXCAVATION): xxx.71.10 LOAD TESTS: xxx.71.11 PERMANENT CASING: xxx.71.12 INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA COLLECTION: xxx.71.13 PROTECTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES: xxx.71,14 ACCESS TUBES: xxx.71.15 NON-DESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION TEST: xxx.72 BASIS OF PAYMENT: xxx.72.1 FURNISHING DRILLED SHAFT DRILLING EQUIPMENT: xxx.72.2 DRILLED SHAFT! xxx.72,3 STANDARD EXCAVATIOI Xxx.72.4 SPECIAL EXCAVATION: xx.72.5 UNCLASSIFIED SHAFT EXCAVATION: xxx.72.6 UNCLASSIFIED EXTRA DEPTH EXCAV., xxx.72,7 OBSTRUCTIONS: xxx.72.8 TRIAL SHAFT HOLES: 200%.72.9 EXPLORATION (SHAFT EXCAVATION) xxx.72,10 LOAD TESTS... Xxx.72.11 PERMANENT CASING: Xxx,72,12 INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA COLLECTION xxx.72.13 PROTECTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURE: xxx.72.14 ACCESS TUBES:. xxx,72.15 NON-DESTRUCTIVE EVAL xxx.72.16 ITEMS OF PAYMENT: ADDENDUM - SHAFT EXCAVATION IN ROCK BY BLASTIN Construction Requirements PaymentCHAPTER 16: INSPECTION AND RECORDS.. RESPONSIBILITIES ... CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCES UNANTICIPATED CONDITIONS. SITE CONDITIONS. CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. Completed Drilled Shaft .. COMMON PROBLEMS.. INSPECTION FORMS. CHAPTER 17: TESTS FOR COMPLETED DRILLED SHAFTS. INTRODUCTION .... SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS OF INTEGRITY TESTS Sonic Echo Test... Internal Stress Wave Test Drilling and Coring.. Crosshole Acoustic (Sonic and Ultrasonic) Tests. Gamma-Gamma Testing. Conereteoscopy Other Procedures. EXPECTED DEFECT RATE FOR DRILLED SHAFTS. DESIGN OF AN INTEGRITY TESTING PROGRAM AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA BASED ON INTEGRITY TESTING EVALUATING DEFECTS REFERENCES ..... CHAPTER 18: REPAIR OF DEFECTIVE DRILLED SHAFT: TYPES OF DEFECTS. Defects at the Base of the Drilled Shaft. Poor Conerete Along the Length of the Shaft. Inadequate Contact Along Sides of Shaft.. Incorrect Dimensions and/or Locatio1 METHODS OF REPAIR. 517 xiUnderpinning with Microshafts Removal and Replacement . Straddle Shafts REFERENCES.. CHAPTER 19: COST ESTIMATION. GENERAL ... FACTORS INFLUENCING COST COMMENTARY ABOUT COST. COST SURVEY. ON-LINE DATA BASES. CONTRACTORS' COST COMPUTATION .. EXAMPLES. Texas. Flori xiiLIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: ELEMENTS OF LRFD FOR DRILLED SHAFTS... QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY OF SOIL PROPERTIES Suggested Approximate Statistical Test for Site Variability. Further Reading BASIC CONCEPT OF AASHTO LIMIT STATES.. A-17 RESISTANCE FACTORS FOR DRILLED SHAFTS A-21 MODIFYING RESISTANCE FACTORS FOR DRILLED SHAFTS. A-23 FORMAL STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURE FOR APPLYING LRFD DESIGN OF DRILLED SHAFT! EXAMPLE PROBLEM. REFERENCES ..... APPENDIX B: COMMENTARY ON METHODS OF COMPUTING THE NOMINAL AXIAL RESISTANCE OF DRILLED SHAFTS. INTRODUCTION... BASIC DESIGN EQUATIONS FOR GEOTECHNICAL AXIAL RESISTANCE. Compression Loading . IDEALIZATION OF GEOMATERIALS . BASE RESISTANCE, Rp... Bearing Capacity Equation .. Drained and Undrained Loading, Undrained Loading . Evaluating the Shear Strength Drained Loading . Drained Loading in Soil. Drained Loading in Preferentially Sloping, Jointed Roc] SIDE RESISTANCE, Rg Undrained Loadin, Cohesive Soils. Cohesive Intermediate Geomaterials - Compression Loading Cohesive Intermediate Geomaterials - Uplift Loading Rock - Compression Loading Rock - Uplift Loading. Rock - Adding Base and Shaft Resistance Drained Loadin; Cohesive Soils - Compression Loading Cohesive Soils - Uplift Loading Granular Soils - Compression Loading. Granular Soils - Uplift Cohesionless Intermediate Geomaterials - Compression Cohesionless Intermediate Geomaterials - Uplift Loading. xiiiIntermediate Geomaterials -- Considerations for Desert Regions Rock... Cyclic Axial Loading. Combined Axial and L AXIAL GROUP EFFECTS..... RELIABILITY OF DESIGN EQUATIONS FOR AXIAL RESISTANC!I ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR ESTIMATING AXIAL RESISTANCE DRILLED SHAFTS.. OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION RESOURCES REFERENCES APPENDIX C: ESTIMATION OF AXIAL MOVEMENT OF DRILLED SHAFTS INTRODUCTION SOILS - SIMPLE FORMULAS . Single Drilled Shafts in Soil Groups of Drilled Shafts in Soil. SOILS - NORMALIZED LOAD-TRANSFER METHODS (COMPRESSION). SOILS AND IGM'S - COMPUTER SIMULATION METHODS.. IGMs - SIMPLIFIED EQUATIONS BASED ON ANALYTICAL $ Cohesive IGM's. Granular (Cohesionless) IGM’ ROCK... GROUPS OF DRILLED SHAFTS IN SOIL AND ROC! Equivalent Raft Method. Equivalent Pier Method CYCLIC LOADING IN THE SERVICE LOAD RANGE RESOURCES REFERENCES . APPENDIX D: EXAMPLE DESIGN PROBLEM: EXAMPLE D-1: LRFD ofa Drilled Shaft in Layered Cohesive Soil and Cohesive Intermediate Geomaterial. ... Work Table for Example D-1, Step 15 EXAMPLE D-2: Drilled Shaft to Rock by LRF EXAMPLE D-3: Design of a Drilled Shaft in Mixed Cohesionless Geomaterial by Work Table for Example D-3, Step 14 EXAMPLE D-4: Design of a Drilled SI in Cohesive Intermediate Geomaterial APPENDIX E: EXAMPLE SOLUTIONS FOR A DOWNDRAG PROBLEM.. Example Ela: Hand Solution with total stress Parameters. Example E1b: Hand Solution Using Effective Stress Parameters. Example E2: Computer solution using elastic-plastic side load transfer telations. APPENDIX F: INSPECTION, REPORTING AND BIDDING FORMS... xivAPPENDIX G: CONSTRUCTION CASE HISTORIES...... STIFF CLAY, WATER TABLE SLIGHTLY BELOW BASE OF CASE 10: KARSTIC AND OLD MINING REGIONS. CASE 11: CONSTRUCTION IN OPEN WATER. xv21. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4, 2.5. 2.6. 2.7. 2.8. 2.9. 2.10. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3, 3.3 3.4. 3.5. 35 LIST OF FIGURES Title Page No. Schematic of a typical drilled shaft... A typical construction job in progress (Photograph courtesy of Watson, Inc Photograph of Queets River Bridge at time of completion (Note old bridge in background and flood debris against the columns). Construction of drilled shafts from barge in the Great Pee Dee River., Cases for use of drilled shafts: (a) bearing in hard clay, (b) skin friction design, (c) socket into rock, (d) installation into expansive clay (continued) ... (Continued). Cases for use of drilled shafts: (e) stabilizing a slope, (f) foundation for overhead sign, (g) foundation near existing structure, (h) closely-spaced drilled shafts to serve as a cantilever or tied-back wall (drilled shafts installed prior to excavation)..... (continued). Cases for use of drilled shafts: i) foun pier protection or navigation aid Subsurface characterization related to design and construction Low-frequency continuous seismic reflection profile for the Connecticut River at the Glastonbury-Wethersfield Bridge (Haeni, 1988).. Kriging surfaces for three layers at overconsolidated clay site (Yoon and O'Neill, 1996) Schematic elevation showing definition of vertical and horizontal effective stresses in the ground. Wet rotary-type soil boring rig Illustration of the concept of dilation at the interface of concrete and rock (O'Neill etal, 1996)... Effect of borehole smear on load-settlement behavior of a drilled shaft in rocl (Hassan and O'Neill, 1997) Possible sliding surface when a drilled shaft is pushed downward. Friction angles for sand at or near the wall of a drilled shaft . Failure relationship for saturated clay at or near the wall of a drilled shaft . Shapes of typical underreams (a) cut with "standard" conical reamer; (b) cut with “bucket,” or hemispherical, reamer. Dry method of construction: (a) initiating drilling (b) starting concrete pour, (c) placing rebar cage, (d) completed shaft. Casing method of construction: (a) initiating drilling, (b) drilling with slury; (c) introducing casing, (d) casing is sealed and slurry is being removed from interior of casing (continued) .. (continued). Casing method of construction: (e) drilling below casing, (f underreaming, (g) removing casing, and (h) completed shaft Altemate method of construction with casing: (a) installation of casing, (b) drilling ahead of casing, (c) removing casing with vibratory driver Case-and-drill (full-depth-casing) rigs: (a) track-mounted rig with auger (continued) (b) skid-mounted rig with hammergrab..3.6 3.7. 4.1. 4.2. 43, 44, 45, 4.6. 4.7. 4.8. 49. 4.10. 4.11. 4.12. 4,13. 4.14, 4.15. 4.16, 4.17, 4.18. 4.20. 6.1. 62. 6.3, 6.4, 65. 6.6. 6.7. Slurry method of construction (a) drilling to full depth with slurry; (b) placing rebar cage; (c) placing concrete; (4) completed shaft. Effect of time lapse between drilling and concreting on CPT resistance of sand adjacent to drilled shafts constructed by the wet method: (a) Two hours between completion of drilling and concreting, (b) Two weeks between completion of drilling and concreting (De Beer, 1988) A typical truck-mounted drilling machine A typical crane-mounted drilling machine (Photograph courtesy of Farmer Foundation Company, Inc.) A typical crawler-mounted drilling machine (Courtesy of Case Pacific Company). Low-headroom drilling machine (crawler-mounted) Photograph courtesy of A. H. Beck Foundation Company) A typical drilling bucket... A typical "muck bucket" or "clean-out bucket” . A single-flight auger .... 82 A typical double-flight auger. 82 A typical rock auger... 84 Tapered rock auger for loosening fragmented rock (Photograph courtesy of Jol Turner) A typical single-walled core barrel. A double-wall core barrel (Photograph courtesy of W. F. J. Drilling Tools, Inc. Full-faced tool with roller bit (Photograph courtesy of Caissons, Inc. A typical closed belling tool inserted into a borehole. A typical belling bucket in drilling position... A Glover rock-grab (Drawing courtesy of Steven M. Hain) A typical grab bucket (Photograph courtesy of John Turnel An example of a churn drill (Photograph courtesy of John Turner), An example of a hammergrab (from LCPC, 1986)... ‘An example of a rodless soil drill (Photograph courtesy of Tone Boring Corp. Ltd,). Mach drill (Photograph courtesy of Tone Boring Corp.. A typical view of stored temporary casing . Examples of use of permanent casing.. J slots in top of casing for use with casing twister (Photograph courtesy of Herzog Foundation Drilling, Inc.) Teeth for use in sealing casing into rock (Photograph courtesy of Herzog Foundation Drilling, Inc.) Formation of mudcake and positive effective pressure in a mineral slurry in sand formation. Mineral slurry plates in pores of open-pored formation (modified after Fleming and Sliwinski, 1977) . Stabilization of borehole by the use of polymer drilling slurries. Relation of viscosity of mineral slurries to dosage (after Leyendecker, 1978 Schematic diagram of unit for mixing and treating mineral slurry. Sampler for slurry (from Fleming and Sliwinski, 1977). Schematic of viscometer... xvii6.8. 6.9. 6.10. 6.11. 6.12. 6.13. 6.14, 6.15. 6.16. 6.17. 6.18. 6.19. 71. 72. 73. 74. 7.10. TAL. 7.12, 7.13. 7.14, 8.4, 85. 8.6. 8.7. 8.8. 8.9, 8.10. Interpretation of data from a viscometer (Ata and O'Neill, 1997) Photograph of sand content test (backwashing sand into burette Photograph of titration test for hardness Caliper log (Foundations for US 231 Crossing of Ohio River The buildup of bentonite filter cake in a model apparatus in response to different pressure heads (after Wates and Knight, 1975) Placing concrete through heavily-contaminated slurry. Factors causing weakened resistance at base of a drilled shaft Placing casing into mineral slurry with excessive solids content Pulling casing with insufficient head of concrete... Placing concrete where casing was improperly sealed... View of a rebar cage being assembled, showing longitudinal steel View of bundles of No. 18 rebar in a drilled shaft cage.... Transverse ties and spiral steel, showing hook anchors and spiral lap: Possible distortion of poorly assembled cage due to pickup forces or hydraulic forces from fresh concrete .... Sizing hoop assembly (from LCPC, 1986).. Centering with plain, epoxy-coated rebar skids (from LCPC, 1986) Concrete rollers.. Installation of rollers: (a) correct, (b) incorrect (from LCPC, 1986 Transverse stiffeners for temporary strengthening of the rebar cage ( LCPc, stiffeners for temporary or permanent strengthening of a rebar cage (from LCPC, 1986)... Photograph of bands used for strengthening lower part of a rebar cag Photograph of rebar cage being lifted improperly (Photo courtesy of Barry Berkovitz, FHWA). Photograph of rebar cage being lifted properly Tnward-tumed hooks in a rebar cage for a drilled shaft at an abutment (photograpl courtesy of Barry Berkovitz, FHWA). Slump loss relationship from a trial mix desi Concrete with insufficient workability for use in drilled shafts Concrete with high workability but with improper mix design for tremic placement Placing concrete directly from the ready-mix truck without a dropehute Steel dropchute with multiple windows Hinged closure (from LCPC, 1986) "Hat" closure (from LCPC, 1986) Loose-plate closure . Photograph of simple plywood loose plate closure on a gravity. xviii8.11. 8.12. 8.13. 8.14. 8.15. 8.16. 8.178. 8.17b. 8.17c. 8.17d. 8.18. 8.19 a, 8.19 b. 8.20. 8.21. ). Normalized side load transfer for drilled shaft in cohesionless soil . Normalized base load transfer for drilled shaft in cohesionless soil Photograph of gravity-fed tremie partially extracted... Capped tremie pipe with breather tube (from LCPC, 1986). 205 Polystyrene plug (from LCPC, 1986) Plug of cement paste. Notching of lower portion of tremie tube ( ) Potential distribution of leached conerete resulting from excessive initial lifting of gravity-fed tremie (from LCPC, 1986) = Pumping operation with a portable, "tremieless" pump unit that does not require a crane to hold the pump line.. = Pump unit from Figure 8.17 a operating beneath a bridge (Photograph courtesy of A.H. Beck, Inc.)... Typical tremie for placement of concrete by pumy Large-scale concrete pumping operation for drilled shafts in a river . Technique of starting the placement of concrete with a pump (from LCPC, 198 Defect in a drilled shaft caused by interruption in concrete supply during pumping (Photograph courtesy of Caltrans) .. Drilled shaft of excellent quality after exhumatior i Comparison of actual amount of concrete required to fill excavation incrementally with theoretical volume of the excavation; Example 1 (LCPC, 1986) = Comparison of actual amount of concrete required to fill excavation incrementally with theoretical volume of the excavation; Example 2 (LCPC, 1986) Comparison of actual amount of concrete required to fill excavation incrementally with theoretical volume of the excavation; Example 3 (ADSC/DFI, 1989) Schematic of the overall design process for drilled shaft foundations Total cost vs. intensity of exploration (after Kulhawy et al., 1983) Hypothetical load-settlement relations for drilled shafts, indicating factors influence shaft behavior under axial load... Idealized geomaterial layering for computation of compression resistanc Idealized geomaterial layering for computation of uplift resistance ... Potential effect of loading slightly above unfactored load on lateral defle of a drilled shaft Concept of group behavior in drilled shafts Condition in which Rs + Rg is not equal to actual ultimate resistance. Idealized geomaterial layering for computation of compression resistance Idealized geomaterial layering for computation of uplift resistance .. Exclusion zones for computation of side resistance for drilled shafts in cohesive soils Factor a for cohesive IGM’s. Definition of geometric terms in Equation ( Definition of area Ay, Normalized side load transfer for drilled shaft in cohesive soil Normalized base load transfer for drilled shaft in cohesive soil Examples of cases where downdrag could occur .. Possible downdrag loading of drilled shafts supporting a bridge abutment xix12.3. 12.4, 12.5. 12.6, 12.7. 12.8. 12.9. 12.10. 13.1. 13.2, 13.3, 13.4, 13.5, 13.6, 13.7. 13.8, 13.9. 13.10, 13.11, 13.12. 13.13. 13.14, 13.15, 13.16, 13.17. 13.18. 13.19. 13.20. 13.21, 13.22. 13.23. 13.24, 13.25. 13.26. 13.27. 13.28. Potential geotechnical strength limit states for drilled shafts... The equivalent pier concept applied to downdrag in groups of drilled shafts .. Elementary mechanics of downdrag: (a) example problem; (b) load transfer curves; (c) relative movement of drilled shaft with Tespect to geomaterial (neutral point assumed at bottom of settling stratum); (d) distribution of load along drilled shaft; (¢) revised estimate of relative movement of drilled shaft with respect to geomaterial; (f) revised estimate of distribution of load along drilled shaft. Definition ofc’ and f° where curved failure envelope exists.. Example soil profile with expansive geomaterial Use of a permanent surface casing for design in expansive soil Raba method of design in expansive soi Use of rebar cage for design in expansive geomateri Single-column supports Loadings on single-column support for a bridge Overhead sign . Elevation view of an overhead sign structure (@) (b) single-shaft foundation (from FHWA-IP-84-11 Bridge abutment... Sketch of foundation for a bridge abutment (FHWA-IP-84-11) Arch bridge (photograph courtesy of Ronald C. O’Neill).. Reaction block for arch bridge (photograph courtesy of Ronald C. O'Neill Drilled shaft foundation for an arch bridge (ftom FHWA-IP-84-11). Drilled shafts for stabilizing a slide (Reese et al., 1987) Drilled shaft retaining structure for depressed section of highway Groundline shear ~ deflection curves for (a) clay and (b) sand (Duncan et al 1994) Groundline moment — 1994) Groundline shear — maximum moment curves for (a) clay and (b) sand (Duncan et al., 1994)... Parameters Am and Bm (Matlock and Reese, 1961). Model of a deep foundation under lateral loading showing concept of soil response curves Definition of terms in Equations (13.12) and (13.13) Variation of EI of a drilled shaft cross section with bending moment and axial load... Assumed stress-strain relation for concrete Assumed stress-strain curve for steel reinforcement The p-multiplier (Brown and Shie, 1991 Modification of p-y curve for group action using the p-multiplier. Interaction diagram for a reinforced concrete column . Interaction diagram for factored resistance for combined axial load and flexure .. Deflection, moment and shear as a function of depth for Example 13.5 Results from computer solutions for Example 13.6 (after FHWA-IP-84-11) Typical underream (after Farr, 1974)... Tensile stress contours for flat-bottom bell (after Farr, foundation and deflection curves for (a) clay and (b) sand (Duncan et al14.1, 14.2. 14.4. 14,5. 14.6. 14,7. 14.8. 14.9. 14.10. 14.11. 14.12. 14.13, 14.14. 14.15, 14.16. 14.17. 14.18. 16.1. 16.2. 16.3. 17.1. 17.2. 17.3. 17.4, 17.5, 17.6. 17.7. 17.8. 17.9. 17.10. Caliper log for deep drilled shaft in rock... Osterberg cell loading system . 96 (a) Schematic of Osterberg cell test 96 (©) Photograph of Osterberg cell. 396 Side and base load-movement result in granite (Osterberg, 1994). Comparison of mobilized side shear stress along a drilled shaft in Florida limestone for both Osterberg cell (OC) and conventional surface loading at the load corresponding to side shear failure in the OC test from finite element analysis (from O'Neill et al., 1997, after McVay et al., 1994) Multiple-level arrangement for Osterberg cells (O'Neill et al., 1997).. Schematic of Statnamic® test. Photograph of Statnamic® test arrangement, showing masses being accelerat inside gravel-filled sheath. Arrangement for testing a drilled shaft under uplift loading Photograph of head of test shaft showing hydraulic jack and electronic load cell .. Photograph of a telltale system. Photograph of a vibrating wire sister bar. The Mustran cell..... ‘View of a test shaft with contact pressure cells at its base Typical set of load distribution curveso btained from use of Mustran cells. Method of analysis of data from axial loading test. Arrangement for a conventional full-scale field lateral loading test using a pushing procedure. Osterberg Cell arranged for 26.7 MN (3000 ton) lateral loading test in a 1.22m (4ft.) diameter rock socket Conerete curve showing normal amount of overbi Concrete curve showing an excessive amount of overbreak Decision tree for acceptance of drilled shafts (Baker et al., 1993) Sonic echo method (after Sliwinski and Fleming, 1983) A sovere defect that can likely be detected by sonic echo testing Ideal response curve for the impulse-response or vibration test (after Weltman, 1977) Examples of impedance logs (Davis and Hertlein, 1991. 89 The parallel seismic test (Davis, 1995)..... Compression wave propagation method with internal receivers (Heame et al 1981) Typical results from internal stress wave test (from Harrell and Stokoe, 1984) . Concrete cores from non-defective and defective drilled shafts. (@) Shaft with no defect.... (b) Shaft with defect caused when concrete began to set while removing the casing Reinforcing cage to which PVC access tubes have been a Diagram of crosshole acoustic logging system (Weltman, 1977) xxiB.19. - Crosshole sonic log for a shaft with a known defect (Baker et al., 1993) . Gamma-gamma testing system (after Preiss et al., 1978)... . Results from gamma-gamma logging of a drilled shaft with four access tubes . Photograph of defect similar to the defect that produced the logs in Figure 17.12 . Photograph of a small transverse crack in a concrete pile from a concreteoscope . Variations of B with depth (O'Neill and Hassan, 199% . TN vs. center-to-center spacing, s, normalized by shaft diameter, Behan, for test Visual inspection of the base of a defective Circular pattern of microshafts to underpin defective drilled shaft Schemes for underpinning a defective drilled shaft with microshafts Use of “straddle” shafts Pricing scenario 1 for 1997 ADSC survey. Pricing scenario 2 for 1997 ADSC survey, Pricing scenario 3 for 1997 ADSC surve} Plan view of characterization domait Elevation of borings and values of s, in characterization domain Undrained shear strength (s,) vs. elevation in upper stratum Undrained shear strength (s,) vs. elevation in lower stratum Idealized probability distributions of load and resistance on a drilled shaft. Definition of the reliability index .. Illustration of defelection-sofetening loading .... Idealized geomaterial layering for computation of compression resistance. Idealized geomaterial layering for computation of uplift resistance illed shafts under compression Relation between s, from CIUC tests and UU tests (Chen and Kulhawy, 1994) -10 Relation between s, from UC tests and UU tests (Chen and Kulhawy, 1994) -11 Fracturing (punching) of a foundation in massive rock or IGM. -13 Bearing capacity factors (Chen and Kulhawy, 1994). B-20 Bearing capacity factor N.s as a function of joint slope of joints and intact rock (Carter and Kulhawy, 1988) Correlation between o and sy/pa. Factor o: for IGM's (O'Neill et al., 1996).. Factor M vs. concrete slump (O'Neill et al., Parameter n for smooth cohesive IGM sockets (O'Neill et al., 1996) Roughness pattern assumed in the development of design equations (O'Neill et al 1996) Simplified representation of Poisson=s effect (exaggerated) . Unit shaft resistance versus shear displacement for drilled shaft socket in rock of moderate roughness with qu = 3.0 MPa (Baycan, 1996). Definition of terms in Equation (B.48). relative shear strength underreamed drilled shafts in compression in moist silty sand (Modified after Garg, 1979) Relative unit side and base resis shaft groups (Liu et al., 1985)...B.20. B.21. Cl. C2, C3, C4, C5, C6. C7. C8. C9. C.10. Cll. C.12. C.13. C14, CS. G.1. G2. G4. G5. G6. G7. G8. G.9a, G.9b. G.10. Gl, G.12. Block failure model for drilled shaft group in cohesive soil with cap in contact with the ground Computed axial resistance (Re) vs. measured axial resistance (R,.) (I Long, 1997).. Normalized load transfer relations for side resistance in cohesive soil Normalized load transfer relation for base resistance in cohesive soil Normalized load transfer relations for side resistance in cohesionless soil C7 Normalized load transfer relations for base resistance in cohesionless soi C8 Mechanistic model of axially loaded drilled shaft 14 Element from an axially loaded shaft 14 Illustration of the definition of y -16 Segment of a load-distribution curve along an axially loaded drilled shaft -18 Idealized soil modulus profile for computing settlement in granular IGM' -22 Load-settlement relation for method for granular IGM's.. -22 Vertical strain influence factors below center of rectangular area (Poulos, 1993)......C-35 Embedment correction factor (after Poulos, 1993), -36 Influence factor I, for drilled shaft groups for E/E 1994) 38 Weighting factors for equivalent pier method (Poulos, 1994).. C-39 Ratio of load transferred to base to applied load for the equivalent pier method (Poulos, 1994) Case 1: Construction in stiff clay with water table slightly below base of shaft 2 Case 2: Construction in hard clay and shale with layer of waterbearing san Case 3: Construction in soft and heavily-jointed clays Case 4: Construction in dry sand Case 5: ion i Case 6: Case 7: Construction through caving soil into fractured rock. Case 8: Construction through boulders... Case 9 a: Blocky weathered rock profile (Sowers, 1994) Case 9 b: Construction where the founding rock is vertically slotted Case 10: Construction in karstic regions, Case 11: Construction in open water... Case 12: Construction through potentially contaminated surface water. xxiiLIST OF TABLES Table No. Title Page No. 2.1. Recommended frequency of borings for drilled shaft foundations for bridges when unclassified excavation is specified (FHWA, 1991 2.2. Geotechnical parameters from borings or soundings to be evaluated numerically if design procedures in this manual are used. 4.1. Brief listing of characteristics of some drilling machines 6.1. Mineral slurry specifications for drilled shaft construction in fine sands (modified after Florida Department of Transportation, 1987).. 6.2. Slurry specifications for a rock-socketed drilled shaft (after Holden, 1984), 6.3, Ranges of properties of various fresh-water slurries at time of concreting consistent with maintenance of angle of wall friction in sand of 0.67 6 in laboratory tests (after Majano et al., 1994)... 7.1. Properties of reinforcing steel for concrete reinforcement 164 7.2. Weights and dimensions of deformed bars (Customary). 164 7.3. Weights and dimensions of deformed bars (Metric).. 165 8.1. Typical mix proportions for workable drilled shaft concrete ( 1980) a 8.2. Concentrations of typical aggressive soil and groundwater contaminants (after Bartholomew, 1980) 90 8.3. Typical proportions of pozzolanic ad 91 8.4. Typical proportions of some prequalified cl TXDOT, 1996)... 92 10.1. Resistance factors, 6, for selected values of global safety factor, F 42 11.1. Values of I,= E, (Young’s Modulus of soil)/3sy and N’ 76 11.2. Descriptions of Rock Types for Use in Table 11.3 11.3. Values of s and m (Dimensionless) for Equation (11.7) based on Classification in Table 11.2. 11.4, Factors @ for cohesive IGM’: 12.1, WES Method of Identifying Potentially Expansive Soils. 13.1, Minimum Drilled Sha Penetrations Based on Lateral Loading from the Characteristic Load Method.. 13.2. Values of Maximum Net Bearing Stresses for Unreinforced Concrete Underreams 17.1. Summary of Common NDE Methods for Evaluating Structural Integrity of Drilled shafts. 17.2. Classification of Defects Found in 5000 Drilled Shafts Constructed by Cementation Ltd. in the United Kingdom in 1982 (Sliwinski and Fleming, 1983). 173. Possible Acceptance Criteria for Drilled Shafts Constructed Using the Wet Method Where Primary Loading is Axial (Modified After Baker et al., 1993) . 174. Rating Guideline for Supporting Decisions for Implementation of Integrity Testing (Modified After Baker et al., 1993) 19.1 ADSC Pricing Survey; Summer, 1997... 32, 19.2 Low-Bid Table for Drilled Shafts, Texas DOT, Statewide 34 19,3. Low-Bid Table for Drilled Shafts, Texas DOT, District 12 Only. xxivAl. A2. AB, AA. AS. B.l. B.2. BA. B.S. Bo. Cl. Typical Values of COVy's of Geomaterial Parameters for Drilled Shaft Design (Modified after Phoon et al., 195) Load Combinations and Load Factors from AA‘ Load factors (y) for Permanent Loads. Notation for Load Components .. Resistance Factors for Geotechnical Strength Limit State for Axially Loaded Drilled Shafts E,/3sy for Cohesive Soil in UU Triaxial Compression and Values of N*... Values of s and m Based on Rock Classification (Carter and Kulhawy, 1988) Descriptions of Rock Types for Use in Table B.2 (Hoek, 1983). Correction Coefficients for Beating Capacity Factors (Chen and Kulhawy, 199. Estimation of En/E;Based on RQD (Modified after Carter and Kulhawy, 1988). fue/fa Based on En/E; (ONEill et al., 1996). Values of C; is Various Soils (Vesic, 1977 xxvCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TYPES OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS, The usual role of a deep foundation is to transfer vertical load through weak, near-surface soils to rock or strong soil at depth. Shallow foundations, on the other hand, are frequently used when the surface soils are capable of supporting load without excessive settlement. There are many types of deep foundations, and classification can be done in various ways. Several of the factors that can be used in classifying deep foundations are given below. . Materials: steel; concrete--plain, reinforced, or pre-stressed; timber; or some combination of these materials. © Methods of transferring load to the soil or rock: principally in end-bearing, principally in skin friction, ot in some combination of the two methods. © Influence of installation on soil or rock: displacement piles, such as a closed-ended steel pipe, that displace a large volume of soil as the piles are driven; or nondisplacement piles, such as an H-pile or open-ended stee! pipe, that displace a relatively small volume of soil during driving (until the pipe becomes plugged), or drilled shafts, which result in essentially no displacement of the soil or rock. © Method of installation: impact hammers--hydraulic, air-, or steam-powered, or diesel-; vibratory hammers; drilling an open hole; or by use of some special method, ‘Thus, an example of a type of deep foundation is a structural-steel shape (essentially nondisplacement), driven by a diesel hammer to rock, that carries its load in end-bearing. The drilled shaft is normally used as a deep foundation, but it can also be used as a shallow foundation. DESCRIPTION OF DRILLED SHAFTS A drilled shaft is a deep foundation that is constructed by placing fluid concrete in a drilled hole. Reinforcing steel can be installed in the excavation, if desired, prior to placing the concrete. A schematic example of a typical drilled shaft is shown in Figure 1.1. The arrows indicate that drilled shafts can carry both axial and lateral loads. In the United States, the drilled shaft is most commonly constructed by employing rotary drilling equipment to bore a cylindrical hole. The borehole may remain unsupported in soils with cohesion or in rock, or it may be kept open by using drilling slurry or casing in granular or bouldery soils, occasionally in highly jointed cohesive soil or rock ot in very soft cohesive soil. 1The casing is usually temporary. It can be placed in a number of ways. After the cylindrical hole is excavated and the casing placed, if necessary, an underreaming tool can be used, if desired, to enlarge the base of a drilled shaft in cohesive soil, A rebar cage can be placed, if needed from a design perspective, and the excavation is filled with fresh concrete. The temporary casing is recovered, Axial Load Diameter can vary Reinforcing Ste (Frequently required by design) Depth can Side Resistance Bell - May be used or _-—— omitted as desired. Size varles - no larger than three times shaft | diameter at base. i Base Resistance Figure 1.1. Schematic of a typical drilled shaft Drilled shafts may also be constructed by the percussion method of excavation. In this case, surface casing is set, and the soil or rock is excavated by a grab bucket, or clamshell. In hard soil or rock, a rock breaker or similar tool can be employed to break the rock before excavation. A tock breaker consists of a heavy bar with a chisel-like tip or a heavy implement shaped like a starthat is dropped repeatedly to fracture the hard soil or rock. An alternate method is to use a hammergrab, a heavy bucket with sharp point that when dropped will penetrate the geomaterial and can then be used to excavate it without removing the tool and changing to a clamshell. The borehole for the drilled shaft can be excavated by percussion to make excavations with noneircular cross sections. A surface casing, or guide, in the form of a cross or a rectangle can be placed. The transverse dimensions of the guide will conform to the size of the grab bucket. A drilled shaft of this type is called a "barrette." Barettes have had little use in the United States during the recent past, except that slurry walls have been excavated with the identical method used to excavate the barrette. Figure 1.2 shows a typical drilled-shaft construction project in progress. The crane-mounted machines are making the excavations, and a service crane, which will be used to place the reinforcing cage and to assist in placing the concrete, is shown in the background. Figure 1.2. A typical construction job in progress (Photograph courtesy of Watson, Inc.) Some deep foundations that are not classified as drilled shafts also involve the placing of concrete in a preformed hole. For example,© The pressure-injected footing is constructed, normally in granular soils, by placing a casing and excavating the interior soil, by placing a quantity of dry-mix concrete in the bottom of the casing, and dropping a weight on the concrete. The impact causes the granular soil to be compacted and, as more dry-mix concrete is added, a bulb is formed. The process is continued as the casing is gradually retrieved. The completed foundation consists of a neatly cylindrical shaft with an enlarged base. © The step-taper pile and similar types of cast-in-place piles are constructed by driving a thin, steel shell into place by the use of a mandrel. The mandrel is withdrawn and the shell is filled with concrete. © The auger-placed-grout pile is constructed by rotating a continuous-flight auger into place. The auger has a hollow stem through which grout is forced under pressure. The auger is gradually withdrawn, and the grout, or special concrete, fills the space formerly occupied by the auger. It is important to recognize that these and similar types of foundations, while having some characteristics of drilled shafts, are not drilled shafts and should not be designed using the principles and procedures described in this manual. It is also important to recognize that drilled shafts have different effects on soils and rocks than do driven piles and that design methods for driven piles are therefore not usually appropriate for drilled shafts. BRIEF HISTORY OF DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATIONS The construction of higher and heavier buildings in cities such as Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and London, where the subsurface conditions consisted of a relatively thick layers of medium to soft clays overlying deep glacial till or bedrock, led to the development of the earliest versions of the drilled shaft foundation. For example, in the late nineteenth century, hand-dug "Chicago" and "Gow" caissons were excavated to a hardpan layer to act as a type of deep footing. These foundations were constructed by making the excavation and by placing sections of permanent liners to retain the soil (wood lagging or meal sheets) by hand. Early designs specified bearing pressures for the hardpan that were usually very conservative, around 380 kPa (8,000 psf) (Baker and Khan, 1971). Machine excavation soon superseded the hand-dug caissons, An early power-driven auger, built around 1908, capable of boring a 0.3 m (12-in) hole to a depth of 6 to 12 m (20 to 40 ft) is described by Osterberg (1968). Records of horse-driven rotary machines used to auger boreholes for drilled shafts in San Antonio, Texas, around 1920 for shafts 7.6 m (25 ft) or more in depth are described by Greer (1969). Early development of drilled shafts in the San Antonio area was motivated by very different subsurface conditions than in the cities described above. There, the surface soils are generally strong, but highly expansive, and drilled shafts were used to carry loads below the expansive surficial soils.In 1931, Hugh B. Williams of Dallas, Texas, started to build small machines for excavating shallow holes and later manufactured truck-mounted machines. His machine became popular in the drilled-shaft industry, and versions are still used today. Prior to World War Il, the development of large scale, mobile, auger-type and bucket-type, earth- drilling equipment allowed more economical and faster construction of the drilled-shaft foundation. In the late 1940's and early 1950's, drilling contractors continued to introduce techniques for larger underreams and for cutting in rock. Large-diameter, straight shafts founded entirely in clay and deriving most of their support from side resistance came into common usage in Britain. Many contractors found that by introducing casing and drilling mud into boreholes, a process long established by the oil industry, boreholes could be cut through permeable soils below the water table and in caving soils economically. Stabilization of the borehole also has been accomplished by injection of grouts (Glossop and Greeves, 1946), by dewatering, and by freezing of the soil. These techniques can be expensive, and are not usually required. The first planned use of drilled shafts on a state department of transportation project is believed to have been a bridge project in the San Angelo District of Texas in 1950 (McClelland, 1996). By the early 1970's drilled shafts became the foundation of choice in coastal locations in Texas. The development of drilled shafts, more or less independently, in various parts of the world led to different terminologies. "Drilled shaft" is the term first used in Texas, while "drilled caisson" or "drilled pier” is more common in the midwestern United States. "Cast-in-drilled-hole pile" is a term used in California by Caltrans, and "bored pile” is common outside of the United States. These terms all describe essentially the same type of foundation, Many contractors prefer not to refer to drilled shafts as "caissons," since that term is considered descriptive of foundations excavated by hand in pneumatic chambers, which are not drilled shafts, While the construction technology advanced rapidly after World War II, the developments of theories for design and analytical techniques lagged behind. In the late 1950's and early 1960's, computers, analytical methods, and full-scale load-testing programs began to produce a better understanding of drilled-shaft behavior. Marked differences between the behavior of driven piles and drilled shafts were noted, and the importance of proper quality control and inspection was realized. Extensive research was carried on through the 1960's and into the 1980's (Whitaker and Cooke, 1966; Reese, 1978; Kulhawy, 1989), and improved design methods and construction procedures were developed such that drilled shafts became regarded as a reliable foundation system for highway structures by numerous state DOT's. In the 1980's and 1990's intensive research has continued, much of it sponsored by state DOT's, the FHWA and the Electric Power Research Institute. Much of this research has focused on collection and analysis of large data bases of full-scale tests, development of expedient methods for performing loading tests, improvements in methods for characterizing uncertainty in the prediction of resistance and settlement, adaptations of principles of rock mechanics to drilled shaft design, and improvement 5of procedures for evaluating the structural integrity of drilled shafts. In 1977 a set of design manuals for drilled shafts was first produced by the FHWA, based on experience at the time. A new design manual was published by the FHWA in 1988, which dealt heavily with construction procedures and proposed simple, conservative design methods. This manual is the second edition of the 1988 manual. Its purpose is to update both design procedures and descriptions of construction technology, and it should be considered to supersede all previous FHWA manuals on the subject. MOTIVATION FOR USING DRILLED SHAFTS Since properly designed and constructed drilled shafts have proved to be reliable foundations for bridges and other highway structures, the principal motivation for using drilled shafts relative to other alternatives (primarily driven piles) is the issue of economics. The economic advantage of drilled shafts often occurs as a result of the fact that very large drilled shafts can be installed to replace groups of driven piles, which in turn obviates the need for a pile cap. This advantage is illustrated in the following two examples: es Example 1. Foundations for the Interior Bents of the Queens River Bridge, Olympic Peninsula, State of Washington This example resulted from the development of alternate designs by the design agency before the project was bid. The construction schedule for the foundations for this bridge was severely constrained by the imposition of a short construction season due to the migration of salmon in the stream that the bridge was to span. One altemate foundation called for the construction of one spread footing and two capped groups of steel H-piles for the three interior bents that were required to be placed in the river. Both the spread footing and driven piles (with pile caps) were to be constructed within cofferdams because of the need to construct footings/caps. The drilled shaft alternate called for the replacement of the spread footing and driven pile groups by three large-diameter drilled shafts, The drilled shafts could be drilled during low water using a crane- mounted drill rig positioned on timber mats within the river and pouring the concrete for the shafts to an elevation above the water level, eliminating the need for cofferdams. Other general data are as follows: © Bridge: Two-lane bridge that was a replacement for an existing bridge. ¢ — Number of Spans: 4, with each of the three interior bents consisting of a single column. The abutments were supported on driven piles with either alternate. © Span Length: 76 m (250 ft) for the two spans between the interior bents Shorter spans to the abutments, oe Year of Construction: 1986Drilled Shaft Contractor: | DBM Contractors, Inc. Subsurface Conditions: Siltstone near the surface at one end dipping to a depth of about 6.1 m (20 ft) near the other end of the bridge. Mixed fine sediments above the siltstone. Pile Alternate: 25 capped H-piles driven into the soft siltstone for each of two interior bents and a spread-footing at the other interior bent. All pile driving, cap construction and spread footing construction were within cofferdams. A single-bent column was formed on the top of the spread footing or pile cap prior to removal of the cofferdams. The need to construct cofferdams prior to installing the foundations required first the construction of a work trestle. Because of the length of time required to construct the trestle and cofferdams, construction of pile groups, caps and footing could not proceed until the following working season, since operations in the river had to be suspended during the salmon runs. Drilled Shaft Alternate: 3, 3.20-m- (10.5-ft-) diameter drilled shafts socketed about 10 m (30 ft) into the siltstone, with casing extending from the top of the siltstone to high water level. The casing was used as a form, and the drilled shaft concrete was poured directly up to the top of the casing. The single columns for the bents were formed on top of the extended sections of drilled shafts, without the requirement to construct cofferdams. Drilled Shaft Construction: The casings were installed, the shaft excavations drilled and the reinforcing steel and concrete were placed during the low-water season by operating off timber mats placed on the floor of the river, which was less than 1.5 m (5 ft) deep during low water. All of the construction in the river took place within the low water season, during which salmon did not migrate in the river. The elimination of the need to operate in the river over two seasons greatly enhanced the cost-effectiveness of the drilled shaft alternate. Estimated Foundation Cost of the Pile-Footing Alternate: $842,000 Actual Foundation Cost of the Drilled Shaft Alternate: $420,000 Cost Savings Realized by Using Drilled Shafts: $422,000 (50.1%) A photo of the completed Queets River Bridge is shown in Figure 1.3.Figure 1.3, Photograph of Queets River Bridge at time of completion (Note old bridge in background and flood debris against the columns) —————————— Example 2. Foundations for Central Spans for State Route 34 over the Great Pee Dee River, South Carolina This example resulted from a value-engineering proposal to replace groups of capped driven steel H-piles, as originally designed, with single drilled shafts. The approach spans and abutments were founded on driven, prestressed concrete piles. The issue for the value engineering proposal was the interior bents. Two of the six interior bents on this bridge were in the river, which was 3 - 6m (10- 20 ft) deep; the remaining four were on land. The pile foundations originally designed for the bents in the river were to be installed within sheet-piled cofferdams. The drilled shafts within the river were installed off barges. Other general data are as follows: © Bridge: Two-lane bridge that was a replacement for an existing bridge © Number of Spans: 5 (excluding approach spans) © Span Length: 58-73 m (190 - 240 ft) © Year of Construction: 1994e Drilled Shaft Contractor: _ Long Foundation Drilling Company e Subsurface Conditions: Soft to stiff clays interbedded with layers of generally dense, waterbearing sand and silt. No rock formation. No boulders. © Pile Design: 234 steel HP 14 X 73 piles driven in six capped groups, 33 to 44 piles per group, with multiple bent columns formed on top of each pile cap. Approximate minimum penetration of the piles below cofferdam seal elevation = 12.2 m (40 ft). Cofferdam seal elevation was about 6.1 m (20 ft) below the soil surface within the river. The seal elevations were approximately at the predicted scour depth. © Drilled Shaft Design: 14 drilled shafts (one per bent column) with diameters of 1.53 m to 1.83 m (5 to 6 ft), with one bent column formed on the top of each drilled shaft. Approximate penetration of drilled shafts below soil surface = 21.3 m (70 ft). © Drilled Shaft Construction: Permanent steel casing was set from the scour line elevation to the water level within the river for the river bents or to finsihed ground level for land bents. The scour elevation was estimated to be approximately 4.5 - 6.1 m (15 to 20 ft) below the soil surface at all bents. Polymer drilling slurry was used to maintain borehole stability. [Note: Permanent steel casing is expensive. Temporary casing or removable forms should be used where possible.] © Cost of Driven Pile Foundation as Bid (including cofferdams and caps): $1,709,400.00 © Actual Cost of Drilled Shaft Foundation Option: _$1,567,500.00 © Cost Savings Realized by Using Drilled Shafis: $141,900 (8.3% of cost of piles) © General Note: An axial loading test was conducted on a full-sized drilled shaft to evaluate drilled shaft performance prior to implementation of the drilled shaft proposal. The cost of this test ($175,000) was included in the cost of drilled shaft option. A photo of the construction operations for the Great Pee Dee River project, in which the drilled shaft contractor is placing casings off a barge within the river, is shown in Figure 1.4.Figure 1.4. Construction of drilled shafts from barge in the Great Pee Dee River There may also be situations in which drilled shafts are not economically suited to a particular project. For example, where soft clays and/or loose, waterbearing sands to large depths are encountered, the resistance advantage and relative ease of construction afforded by driven piles or other altemates may sometimes make them more economical than drilled shafts. For small, single-span, bridges in which the designer requires batter piles in the abutments, driven piles are often more economical than drilled shafts. However, in most other instances drilled shafts are cost-competitive with driven piles when both systems are designed appropriately. It is advisable that, where feasible, alternate designs, one including drilled shafts, be made and bids solicited on cach altemate. Some guidance on the estimation of costs of drilled shafts is provided in Chapter 19. REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICE Construction The attention to detail in the construction of drilled shafts is critical to ensure successful foundations. Several of the following chapters of this manual will deal with a number of those details. If proper and well-established procedures are employed, drilled shafts can be installed 10successfully in a wide variety of subsurface conditions with differing geometries and for a number of applications. The applications are dealt with in the next section. Certain limitations exist with regard to the geometry of a drilled shaft. Diameters of 300 - 360 mm (12 to 14 in.) can be used if the length of the shaft is no more than perhaps 10 m (30 ft). The concrete may be placed by free fall in small diameter shafts (as well as in shafts of larger diameter) if the mix is carefully designed to ensure that the excavation is filled and segregation is minimized. Such small foundations are commonly used to support sign structures and traffic barriers. As the depth of the excavation becomes greater, the diameter normally must increase. Several factors that influence the ratio of depth to diameter are: the nature of the soil profile, the position of the water table, whether or not a rebar cage is required, the design of the concrete mix, and the need to support lateral loading. A concrete mix with a high workability (slump) is frequently required, as noted in Chapter 8, Ordinarily, the aspect ratio of a drilled shaft, or its length divided by its diameter, should not exceed about 30. Heavy, rotary-drilling equipment is available for large drilled-shaft excavations. Cylindrical holes can be drilled with diameters of up to 6 m (20 ft), to depths of up to 80 m (244 ft), and with underreams up to 10 m (33 ft) in diameter, although such sizes are unusual. Percussion equipment can make excavations of almost depth with diameters up to 1.53 m (5 ft). The versatility of drilled shafts is evident when the constructability is considered in various subsurface conditions. Situations that can be dealt with using readily available methods of construction are: ° Sockets into soft or hard rock. e Boulders above glacial till or rock (if the boulders cannot be broken or removed, the diameter of the shaft excavation should be sized larger than the boulders). © Residual soils where weathering is highly irregular. © Karstic formations (solution cavities). © Caving soils below the water table. © Very soft soils (permanent casing may sometimes be required). © Marine sites. The detailed methods of construction that can be used in a variety of subsurface and surface conditions are presented later in this manual.Design for Axial Load Drilled shafts were originally designed to resist load only in end bearing. Thus, the design involved the use of the equations of bearing capacity, such as those of Terzaghi (1943), ‘Numerous loading tests conducted on instrumented drilled shafts over many years showed, however, that drilled shafts can often produce a substantial amount of resistance in side shear or "skin friction." Concurrently, design methods have been developed to predict the skin-friction resistance. The following general equation is now widely accepted by the engineering profession for the computation of the ultimate resistance of drilled shafts: RyRy +R, (1) where Ry = ultimate axial resistance of the drilled shaft, Ry = net ultimate resistance in end bearing, and Rs= ultimate resistance in side resistance or skin friction. In the design methods presented here, Ry is considered to be a net bearing resistance, which is the gross, total resistance minus the weight of the shaft, so the shaft weight need not be considered as a load. For computing uplift resistance, however, the weight of the drilled shaft should be added to the right-hand side of the equation. That weight should include the effects of buoyancy if all or part of the drilled shaft is below the water table (piezometric surface). While the magnitude of R, could be determined theoretically from available equations of bearing capacity, research has revealed that these equations frequently need to be modified for drilled shafts to account for effects of construction. The magnitude of R, depends on soil conditions, properties of the concrete, and method of construction. Prediction of values for Ry and Ry constitute a major focus of this manual. Considerable attention is given to evaluating R, and Ry from soil or rock properties in Chapters 10 and 11. Once Rg and Ry are computed, the value of R, can be found by use of Equation (1.1). It is essential for the reader to understand that the factors suggested later in this manual for the determination of R; and Rs are based primarily on experience in soils and rocks that can be described as “normal.” For example, considerable information is available in data bases about the behavior of drilled shafts in uncemented sands deposited recently in geologic time and preconsolidated by the lowering and raising of the water table, for uncemented, overconsolidated clays and for uniform, soft rock. However, relatively little is known about the general behavior of drilled shafts in "structured" soils (soils that are cemented, highly sensitive or retain the structure of the parent rock) and in many types of rock, particularly heterogeneous and highly fractured rock. When these types of geomaterials are encountered, the acquisition of site-specific information on side and base resistance and resultant movements through load testing is strongly recommended.Construction practices and controls have a significant effect on the performance of drilled shafts. The design factors that will be suggested in this manual should be coupled to the level of quality control and quality assurance that is expected by the designer to exist during construction. It is for this primary reason that it is essential for designers of drilled shafts to understand basic construction methods. Design for axial loading can proceed in one of two ways. The traditional working stress design (WSD) method, sometimes referred to as the allowable stress design (ASD) design method, can be used in which a global factor of safety is selected and applied by using Equation (1.2): R R, = $4 20 (12) where R, —_=allowable working load, and F = global factor of safety. The value of R, must equal or exceed the maximum unfactored, or "nominal," load applied to the drilled shaft. More recently, AASHTO (1994) has produced a design code recommending the use of load and resistance factor design (LRFD) for drilled shafts and other structural components. The LRFD method in highway substructure design is described in detail in other FHWA publications (FHWA, 1996). With this method, various factors, with values of 1 or above, are applied to the individual components of load. Other factors, with values of 1 or less, are applied to the total resistance, or individual components of resistance, in such a way as to assure a margin of safety consistent with historical practice using global factors of safety. The LRFD approach to foundation design has the advantages that (a) foundations are easier to design if the superstructure is designed using LRFD (multiple sets of loads do not have to be carried along in the calculations) and (b) it offers a means to incorporate reliability into the design process in a rational manner. The basic design equation for axially loaded drilled shafts in the LRFD context, which is equivalent to Equation (1.2), can be written as: 1270, = LOR, (13) where 1 =a factor varying from 0.95 to 1.05 to reflect ductility, redundancy and operational importance of the structure. 1B1 = load factor for load type i (for example, dead load), Q, =nominal value of load type i, 4; = resistance (or "performance" factor for resistance component i (for example, skin friction), and R, =value of estimated (nominal) ultimate resistance component i (for example, Rs). Equation (1.3) is evaluated at the ultimate limit state, or state at which the foundation is viewed to collapse. Several different loading conditions, such as those for normal strength requirements and those for extreme-event-loading requirements, can be considered in this evaluation. Analysis of both geomaterial and structural resistance is required. Equation (1.3) is also evaluated for the service limit state, or state at which the structure becomes unserviceable, although it may not actually collapse. Different values of the load and resistance factors are oitén-specitiéd for thé service limit state'than for tHé ultimate limit state: - That particular application of Equatioh (1.3) leAding to:the largest foundation is the most critical application for a given design, and thé resulting drilled shaft configuration is incorporated in the final plans, [The symbols for the load factors (y) and resistance factors (6) are not to be confused with similar symbols used in another context with soil properties, in which y represents unit weight and 6 Tepresents angle of internal friction. These symbols are used both for LRFD factors and for soil properties in this manual; however, the specific use of each symbol should be clear in every instance.] Equations (1.1) - (1.3) can be used to design drilled shafts in a variety of soils, rocks and geomaterials whose behavior is intermediate between soil and rock (so-called intermediate geomaterials), The details of such designs are discussed in later chapters, Design for Lateral Load Drilled shafts can be used to sustain lateral loads (loads perpendicular to the axis of the drilled shaft) of large magnitude if a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel is employed and if the shaft is sized properly. The FHWA has sponsored various development projects that produced design procedures that are generally accepted and widely used in the engineering community. The procedures for design for lateral load will be discussed in Chapter 13, although lateral-load design is covered more completely in other FHWA references. APPLICATIONS OF DRILLED SHAFTS The drilled shaft foundation is employed most frequently either to support heavy loads and minimize settlement, to support uplift loads, or to support lateral loads, Because of the versatility of the methods of construction that are described in subsequent chapters, drilled shafts can be constructed properly in a wide variety of soils. Casing or drilling slurry may be used to 4allow effective construction in soils that are soft or have a tendency to cave or collapse. The method of construction can be adapted to reduce noise pollution and damage to adjacent structures produced by loss of ground or by soil stress waves that are produced by driving piling. Specialized equipment is capable of excavating under severely restricted headroom. The high load capacity of drilled shafts may allow the use of a single, large-diameter drilled shaft instead of a group of driven piles, as demonstrated by the examples summarized earlier in this chapter. Such foundations can also accommodate tight construction areas, such as freeway medians. The size and reinforcing of the drilled shaft is determined by the soil conditions, the loading, and the performance requirements. If lateral forces and/or moments have to be resisted, modifications to the structural properties are made to resist the bending stresses, Tensile loads are normally resisted by side friction of the drilled shaft. Reinforcement can be extended directly from the foundation into the structure to mobilize these tensile resistances, Drilled-shaft retaining walls can be used to resist lateral earth pressure as, for example, at a bridge abutment. Drilled shafts can also be used to assist in stabilizing slopes (Wilson, 1964). In such a case a detailed study must be made of the slope, and a stability analysis made to investigate the effectiveness of the solution. The procedures on design for lateral loading will prove helpful in making such designs. Other applications of drilled shafts are anchorages for tied-back walls, foundations for waterfront structures, breasting and mooring dolphins, and pier-protection systems, Figure 1.5 illustrates cases where drilled shafts with a variety of geometries have been placed in a variety of stratigraphies, and also illustrates various applications. Later sections of this manual provide guidance in selecting the geometry of the drilled shaft for a particular situation. The final decision as to whether drilled shafts are a better solution for a particular problem than another type of foundation must be based on performance requirements, economic considerations, and equipment availability. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DRILLED SHAFTS Advantages © Construction equipment is normally mobile and construction can proceed rapidly. © The excavated material and the drilled hole can usually be examined to ascertain whether the soil conditions at a site agree with the expected soil profile. For end-bearing designs, the soil beneath the base can be probed for cavities or weak soil if desirable.Figure 1.5. Cases for use of drilled shafts: (a) bearing in hard clay, (b) skin friction design, (c) socket into rock, (d) installation into expansive clay (continued)Potential sliding ‘surface ® 1) Figure 1.5 (continued). Cases for use of drilled shafts: (¢) stabilizing a slope, (f) foundation for overhead sign, (g) foundation near existing structure, (h) closely-spaced drilled shafts to serve as a cantilever or tied-back wall (drilled shafts installed prior to excavation)Figure 1.5 (continued). Cases for use of drilled shafts: (i) foundation at a marine site, and (j) pier protection or navigation aid Changes in geometry of the drilled shaft can be readily made during the progress of a job if the subsurface conditions so dictate, These changes include adjustment in diameter and in penetration and the addition or exclusion of underreams. The heave and settlement at the ground surface will normally be very small if proper construction practices are followed. The personnel, equipment, and materials for construction are usually readily available anywhere in the United States. The noise level of the equipment is less than for some other methods of construction, making drilled shafts appropriate for urban construction. The drilled shaft is applicable to a wide variety of soil conditions. For example, it is possible to drill through a layer of cobbles and for many feet into sound rock. It is also possible to drill through frozen ground, Minimal disturbance is caused to the surrounding soils by the drilling operation; thus, any consolidation settlement due to remolding of the soil is limited and reduction of shear strength of clay soils on a slope due to the installation of drilled shafts is typically smaller 18than with driven piles, because large pore water pressures are not generated by drilled shaft construction. Very large loads can be carried by a single drilled shaft so that a cap is often not needed, as illustrated previously. Design procedures for axial loading, presented in Chapter 11, are available that allow designs of drilled shafts to be made considering load transfer both in end bearing and side resistance. Special instrumentation and high-capacity loading systems have been developed to allow load tests to be performed to obtain detailed information on the manner in which load is transferred from the drilled shaft to the supporting soil. These are described in Chapter 14, Special techniques are available to allow the non-destructive evaluation of drilled shafts for purposes of quality control and quality assurance. The circular shape of the drilled shaft makes it more resistant to the development of local scour around foundations in rivers, streams and estuaries than the non-circular shapes of many other foundations, Elimination of the pile cap, which can commonly be accomplished with drilled shaft foundations, also improves scour resistance. [Further information on scour computations, which is an important issue in bridge foundation design may be found in Richardson and Davis (1995).] Disadvantages The quality and performance of drilled shafts are sensitive to construction procedures, so that both experienced construction personnel and careful inspection are required. Drilled shafts are not normally used in situations where the shaft must penetrate an aquifer that is under artesian head (phreatic surface above ground surface). The construction of drilled shafts through contaminated soils is problematical because of the expenses incurred in disposing of the spoil. General knowledge of construction and design methods is lacking in some engineering organizations. Therefore, construction techniques may sometimes be specified that are unsuitable for the stratigraphy at the construction site. Since a single drilled shaft is frequently designed to replace a number of driven piles, the redundancy present in the group of driven piles is absent, which again requires diligence and expertise in construction and inspection. 19While the quality of inspection that is required is not a disadvantage of drilled shafts, an uninformed inspector can create a number of problems during construction. Knowledgeable inspectors and a sufficient inspection staff are of critical importance when difficult drilling or ‘unanticipated soil conditions are encountered. Precise, well-written construction specifications are also extremely important to assure that drilled shafts are constructed in accordance with the assumptions made by the designer and to minimize claims by the contractor, TRAINING RESOURCE A video, approximately 20 minutes in length, introducing the viewer to drilled shafis is available from ADSC, The International Association of Foundation Drilling, P. O. Box 280379, Dallas, TX 75228; (214) 343-2091. REFERENCES AASHTO (1994). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D. C., First Edition, Baker, C. N., Jr., and Khan, F. (1971). "Caisson Construction Problems and Correction in Chicago," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM2, pp. 417-440. FHWA (1996). Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Highway Substructures, Manual for NHI Course, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D. C. Glossop, R., and Greeves, I. S. (1946). "A New Form of Bored Pile," Concrete and Constructional Engineering, London, Dec. Greer, D. M. (1969). "Drilled Piers - State of the Art," WCA Geotechnical Bulletin, Vol. IIL, No. 2, Woodward-Clyde and Associates, New York. Kulhawy, F. H. (1989). "Drilled Shaft Foundations," in Foundation Engineering Handbook, Second Edition, Ed. by H. Winterkom and H.-Y. Fang, Van Nostrand Reinhold and Company, New York, McClelland, M. (1996). "History of Drilled Shaft Construction in Texas," Paper presented before the 75th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D. C., Jan. Osterberg, J. O. (1968). "Drilled Caissons - Design, Installation, Application," Proceedings, Soil ‘Mechanics Lecture Series, Foundation Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, pp. 151 - 208. Reese, L. C. (1978). "Design and Construction of Drilled Shafts," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT1, pp. 91 - 116. 20Richardson, E. V., and Davis, S. R. (1995). "Evaluating Scour at Bridges, Third Edition," FHWA Publication No, FHWA-IP-90-017, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D. C. Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Whitaker, T., and Cooke, R. W., (1966). "An Investigation of the Shaft and Base Resistance of Large Bored Piles in London Clay," Proceedings, Symposium on Large Bored Piles, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp. 7 - 49. Wilson, N. E. (1964), "Drilled-In Caissons Used to Stabilize a Moving Foundation," Proceedings, Congreso Sobre Cimientos Profundos, Sociedad Mexicana de Mechanica de Suelos, Mexico City, pp. 311 - 326. 21CHAPTER 2. SITE CHARACTERIZATION PURPOSE OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION A key activity in the design and construction of drilled shafts, as for other foundations, is characterizing the site on which the drilled shaft foundation will be constructed. As illustrated in Figure 2.1, accurate subsurface characterization is required to aid in the design of the foundation, the selection of a construction method by the contractor, and to give both state DOT and contracting personnel guidance during construction operations. The site is characterized through surveys of existing historical, geologic and hydrologic data; surface reconnaissance; general site surveys by geophysical and/or remote sensing methods; and acquisition of detailed values of soil and rock parameters in order to forecast potential construction methods and potential difficulties and to perform the design, Certain details are required for any given design method. The engineer managing the site characterization effort should be aware of the details required for all potential design methods that may be used and should arrange for the collection of data accordingly. In this chapter the data required for the design methods outlined later in this manual will be clearly pointed out. Experience Regulations Economics Design Mode! onstruction Method Figure 2.1. Subsurface characterization related to design and construction Often, the best way to attack the problem of site characterization for drilled shaft foundations is through a phased exploration program, in which a general picture of the site conditions is drawn from a knowledge of the geologic setting of the site, existing subsurface data, surface reconnaissance and aerial surveys, perhaps augmented by widely spaced soil borings, probes 22and/or geophysical studies to evaluate the general stratigraphy and any special features that may exist. An understanding of the three-dimensional structure of the site gained from this general picture is then used to assign locations for other borings and/or in-situ tests that will provide numerical values for the relevant geomaterial properties without excessive effort and will allow appropriate profiles and maps of subsurface features to be constructed by geotechnical personnel. A constant concern of geotechnical engineering personnel performing the site characterization is the variability of the site conditions and the reliability with which the strata can be located and principal properties of the geomaterials determined. The choice of resistance factors (LRFD) or factors of safety (ASD) should depend directly on the level of confidence that the geotechnical personnel have in the values assigned to the various soil and rock properties and locations of strata. This means that the level of effort that goes into the characterization of a site and the level of expertise employed in interpreting geomaterial data will be directly reflected in the economics of the completed foundation. Appropriate investment in site characterization efforts will pay off in lower initial bids and reduced claims by the drilled shaft contractor. Itis not within the scope of this manual to describe detailed procedures for obtaining soil and rock properties. For the reader who is not familiar with sampling, laboratory testing, in-situ testing of soils, and soil mapping, the FHWA Soils and Foundations Manual (Cheney and Chassie, 1993), a detailed report on exploration and sampling by the Corps of Engineers (Hvorslev, 1962), ASTM Guide D5434-93 (ASTM, 1996), and the FHWA manual on Design and Construction of Pile Foundations, Vol. I (Hannigan ct al., 1996a) should be consulted. SITE INVESTIGATIONS General A site investigation for drilled shafts must not only provide the properties and spatial pattern of the major strata, but it should also provide details of the stratigraphy at the site. For example, the presence of a stratum of soft, compressible clay below a dense sand deposit may preclude the use of an end-bearing foundation in the sand. Furthermore, the importance of recording and reporting apparently minor details in a site investigation cannot be overstated, because such details may have major effects on the construction and performance of drilled shafts. For instance, the failure to identify a relatively thin stratum of submerged sand within a stratum of cohesive soil or rock could mean that the use of an inexpensive dry method of construction would be impossible. Caving soil, such as the submerged sand, would require the contractor to mobilize additional equipment, to use more materials, to take more time to do the work than he/she had envisioned in preparing the bid, and almost certainly to file a claim of "changed" (or more correctly, "unforeseen") conditions against the DOT. Perhaps the most common problem of this type is the failure to identify the presence or extent of boulders in the subsurface exploration documents provided to the bidders. If a contractor has not 23foreseen the need to drill through boulders or has underestimated the time necessary to do so based on the site investigation report, delays and claims are likely. Accurate and detailed documentation of the subsurface conditions at a site also forms the basis by which the subsurface conditions that are actually encountered during construction can be confirmed to be equivalent to those used by the designer in making the design, Drilled shaft designers, therefore, should specify that logs be made of the character of the excavated soil ot rock during drilled shaft construction and compare them in a timely manner with the stratigraphy assumed in making the design from the program of subsurface exploration. If there are significant differences, appropriate and timely changes can be made in the depth and/or diameter of the drilled shafts, Philosophically, many foundation designers consider the driving resistance of a driven pile to afford a measure of the pile's capacity, particularly ifthe resistance is measured on a pile that is restruck, if the energy delivered by the hammer is monitored in some fashion, and if a Computation is made with wave-equation methods (e. g., Hannigan et al., 1996b). Capacities of drilled shafts cannot be verified so easily during construction, so the designer must assure that subsurface information on the site stratigraphy and soil properties are documented thoroughly prior to designing and constructing the drilled shafts. Surface Features The preliminary investigation should be approached so as to uncover all pertinent surface features at the site that will affect construction operations. Among the factors to be dealt with are the following: © Restrictions on points of entry for drilling equipment, and restrictions on positioning of construction equipment, such as overhead power lines, existing bridges, and restricted work areas (e. g., medians). . Existence of utilities and limitations concerning removal, relocation, or protection. © Locations of existing structures on the site and on adjacent sites. Descriptions of the as- built foundations of those structures must be obtained if it can be reasonably expected that subsurface soil movements could occur at the locations of those foundations due to drilled shaft construction. © Locations of trees and other major surface vegetation and limitations concerning removal or damage. e Possibility of the existence of contaminated soils, such as. ‘may occur near the locations of abandoned underground petroleum tanks at service station locations or at the location of old landfills.e Presence of surface water. © Presence of fault escarpments, boulders, hummocky ground and other surface features that may suggest subsurface conditions. e Initial and final surface contours of the site. © Any information on the condition of the ground surface that might be reasonably expected at time of construction as related to the trafficability of construction equipment. e Restrictions on noise and/or other environmental considerations. Subsurface Pipelines, Cables, and Other Obstructions The site investigation must include, at an early stage, a careful survey of the subsurface facilities, both active and inactive, As-built locations of utilities that are currently in service must be carefully defined and clearly marked to prevent damage by construction equipment. Active utilities can often be located by reference to plans on file with local governmental agencies. The employment of a company that specializes in the location of subsurface facilities may sometimes be desirable, even if plans are available, as plans often do not show the-2s-built locations of utilities. In urban areas, old foundations, storage tanks, abandoned utilities or old landfills are also frequently buried beneath the existing ground surface. Not only do encounters with such obstructions cause expensive delays, but hazardous gases trapped in landfills or hazardous liquids in abandoned tanks or pipes may pose a safety hazard to construction personnel and to the public. Such obstructions should be identified and marked at the job site. Preliminary Subsurface Mapping On large projects it is advisable to map the subsurface using relatively inexpensive survey techniques, existing geologic data and existing subsurface exploration data prior to making detailed subsurface investigations. At soil sites, cone penetrometer test (CPT) probes can often be used for this purpose. Geophysical techniques such as spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) are useful in delineating major strata and defining the continuity of subsurface structure, including the identification of soil/rock interfaces at sites where a clear demarcation between soil and rock exists. A specific technique that can be useful in bodies of water is the continuous seismic reflection profiling technique. This technique is illustrated for a crossing of the Connecticut River near Hartford in Figure 2.2. An excellent summary of geophysical site investigation techniques is provided in ISSMFE TC 10 (1994). Geostatistical techniques, unavailable a few years ago, can be used to produce best-estimate, three-dimensional maps of selected key soil parameters from the results of a relatively small 25‘number of probes. The techniques use the correlation between soil or rock parameters as a function of distances between sampling points on the site to derive interpolation or weighting functions to make a best estimate of the values of a particular parameter at points where it was not measured. One technique to accomplish such mapping is called "Kriging,” Kriging theory is explained by Journel and Huijbregts (1978), and software to produce Kriging maps is documented by Englund and Sparks (1991). An example of a three-dimensional Kriging map for CPT tip resistance, q,, for a small, overconsolidated clay site is shown in Figure 2.3. Anomalous conditions are evident where "spikes" appear on the Kriging diagrams, for example, near (X = 30, ¥ = 95) in Layer 2 in Figure 2.3. More intensive investigations may need to be made near such locations in the detailed site investigation that follows. Tomographic methods for the display of three-dimensional data based on probes, borehole geophysics and surface geophysics are being developed rapidly and should be a great help to designers of drilled shaft foundations in the future. It is still necessary, however, to obtain samples of the geomaterials from each of the strata identified in such a preliminary study for classification purposes and for laboratory testing. Figure 2.2. Low-frequency continuous seismic reflection profile for the Connecticut River at the Glastonbury-Wethersfield Bridge (Haeni, 1988) 26Cone Tip Resistance, In(q.), kPa Figure 2.3. Kriging surfaces for three layers at overconsolidated clay site (Yoon and O'Neill, 1996) Detailed Site Investigations The detailed site investigation that follows the preliminary investigation usually consists of making borings at close intervals to obtain relatively undisturbed samples of cohesive soil or rock and samples plus in-situ test values of some sort for granular soils. The locations of the borings are chosen carefully with respect to the planned locations of the drilled shafts. Because of the need for accurate subsurface information to perform the design and to forecast construction procedures, the frequency of borings shown in Table 2.1 is suggested for drilled shaft foundations for bridges [FHWA (1991)]. Of course, geologic details, observed variability of the subsurface conditions and practical considerations of site access may dictate other boring patterns. Boring depths should extend to at least 125% of the expected depths of the drilled shaft bases plus two base diameters in soil or in rock when the RQD is less than about 50 percent. Often, the design criterion is for bases to bear on sound rock, so, if RQD values in rock are 27greater than about 50 per cent at the planned base elevation, the borings will normally only need to be taken to 100% of the expected depths plus two base diameters as long as the RQD remains above 50 per cent, since it is not very likely that the shafts will need to be deepened once the actual strata are exposed. Local geologic conditions may dictate other criteria for boring depths. The preceding is only a general suggestion. If, in the course of design or construction, it becomes necessary to deepen the shafts, supplementary borings should be taken, The eventual method of payment for construction of drilled shaft foundations should be tied to the extent of the boring program, The program indicated in Table 2.1 is generally appropriate for “unclassified” payment, in which the drilled shaft contractor is paid by the meter or foot of completed drilled shaft regardless of the type of geomaterial encountered during the excavation process. It is not advisable to use less detailed boring programs when unclassified payment is specified. Table 2.1. Recommended frequency of borings for drilled shaft foundations for bridges when unclassified excavation is specified (FHWA, 1991) Redundancy Condition | Shaft Diameter (m) Guideline Single-Column, Single | All One Boring Per Shaft Shaft Foundations Redundant, Multiple-Shaft | 2 1.83 m (6 ft) One Boring Per Shaft Foundations Redundant, Multiple-Shaft | 1.22-1.82m(4ft-6f) | One Boring Per Two Foundations Shafts Redundant, Multiple-Shaft | < 1.22 m (4 ft) One Boring Per Four Foundations Shafts TECHNIQUES FOR SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS Information Required for Design Prior to finalizing a program of subsurface investigation, it is helpful to know which soil parameters will be needed for the design calculations. Obviously, the subsurface investigation program should be planned so as to recover samples and/or acquire in-situ data that enable the designer to evaluate these parameters, Table 2.2 provides a brief list of the geomaterial parameters that must be evaluated in order to design axially loaded drilled shafts according to procedures given later in this manual. The symbols used in Table 2.2 are as follows. 28s,= undrained shear strength, sometimes denoted c,, often taken as one-half of the compressive strength (units of F/L?), 4.= tip resistance from quasi-static cone penetration test (CPT) (corrected for pore pressure if data are from a piezocone) (units of F/L?), sleeve resistance from quasi-static cone penetration test (CPT) (units of F/L?), standard penetration test (SPT) blow count when 60% of the hammer energy is transferred to the drill string (Blows/0.3 m). Values will be uncorrected for depth or submergence unless otherwise noted, q.= unconfined compression strength (units of F/L?), RQD ="rock quality designation” = [5 (lengths of all pieces of recovered core > 100 mm long)] / [distance cored] (dimensionless, sometimes expressed as a Percent), oec= effective angle of friction between the rock or IGM (defined below) and the concrete comprising the wall of the drilled shaft, not including any geometrically induced dilation (can be estimated crudely if not measured) (degrees), Exe = Young's modulus of the rock or IGM core (can be estimated approximately from 4, if not measured) (units of F/L?), and IGM = "intermediate geomaterial," which is defined here as a cohesive earth material with 0.5 MPa

Potrebbero piacerti anche

• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  Da Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Valutazione: 3.5 su 5 stelle

  3.5/5 (738)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  Da Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (4610)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  Da Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (122)
• • Riviste
  • Podcast
  • Spartito
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  Da Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Valutazione: 3.5 su 5 stelle

  3.5/5 (231)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  Da Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (266)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  Da Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (589)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  Da Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (842)
• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  Da Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (5796)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  Da Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (234)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  Da Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (1713)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  Da Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (271)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  Da Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Valutazione: 3.5 su 5 stelle

  3.5/5 (400)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  Da Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (537)
• Yes Please

  

  Da Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (1898)
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  Da Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (599)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  Da Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Valutazione: 3.5 su 5 stelle

  3.5/5 (2259)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  Da Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Valutazione: 3.5 su 5 stelle

  3.5/5 (137)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  Da Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (345)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  Da Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brené Brown

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (1091)
• John Adams

  

  Da Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (2409)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  Da Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (440)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  Da Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (474)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  Da Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (821)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  Da Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (897)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  Da Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (1929)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  Da Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (3811)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  Da Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (4201)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  Da Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (789)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  Da Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (2104)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  Da Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Valutazione: 3.5 su 5 stelle

  3.5/5 (2519)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  Da Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Valutazione: 3.5 su 5 stelle

  3.5/5 (104)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  Da Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (74)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  Da Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (45)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  Da Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (1104)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  Da Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (1840)
• Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations - Volume 1 (Nhi16009 - v1)

  

  Documento559 pagine

  Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations - Volume 1 (Nhi16009 - v1)

  Amanda Cervantes

  100% (1)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  Da Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (98)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  Da Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Toibin

  Valutazione: 3.5 su 5 stelle

  3.5/5 (1938)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  Da Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (1016)
• Little Women

  

  Da Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Valutazione: 4 su 5 stelle

  4/5 (104)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  Da Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Valutazione: 3.5 su 5 stelle

  3.5/5 (792)
• Correlations For Swelling Pressure From PI PL Results

  

  Documento65 pagine

  Correlations For Swelling Pressure From PI PL Results

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• Computation of Allowable Settlement From Plate Load Test

  

  Documento1 pagina

  Computation of Allowable Settlement From Plate Load Test

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• Steve Jobs

  

  Da Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Valutazione: 4.5 su 5 stelle

  4.5/5 (806)
• Drilling Equipmnet Catalogue 2018

  

  Documento88 pagine

  Drilling Equipmnet Catalogue 2018

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• Liquefaction and Settlement Analysis 1

  

  Documento54 pagine

  Liquefaction and Settlement Analysis 1

  Sheril Chandrabose

  50% (2)
• Foundation Analysis and Design 5th Edition Joseph E Bowles

  

  Documento7 pagine

  Foundation Analysis and Design 5th Edition Joseph E Bowles

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• HM-3930 Man 0610

  

  Documento4 pagine

  HM-3930 Man 0610

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• Miller 400D: Digital Resistance Meter

  

  Documento42 pagine

  Miller 400D: Digital Resistance Meter

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• Corrosion Engineering

  

  Documento2 pagine

  Corrosion Engineering

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• Corrosion Engineering

  

  Documento2 pagine

  Corrosion Engineering

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• Bulk Unit Weight - Bowles

  

  Documento2 pagine

  Bulk Unit Weight - Bowles

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• ADM IRID - Standard Specifications - Version 2.0

  

  Documento7 pagine

  ADM IRID - Standard Specifications - Version 2.0

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• SBC Ref

  

  Documento3 pagine

  SBC Ref

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• Rock Mass Tomlinson Foundation Design and Construction

  

  Documento2 pagine

  Rock Mass Tomlinson Foundation Design and Construction

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• ADM Spec For Back Filling

  

  Documento7 pagine

  ADM Spec For Back Filling

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• UBC 97 English Soil

  

  Documento3 pagine

  UBC 97 English Soil

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• Appendix - B2 Additional Borehole Logs

  

  Documento1 pagina

  Appendix - B2 Additional Borehole Logs

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• ADM IRID - Standard Specifications - Version 2.0

  

  Documento7 pagine

  ADM IRID - Standard Specifications - Version 2.0

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• CPT Performance Criteria Limits

  

  Documento1 pagina

  CPT Performance Criteria Limits

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora
• Settle 3 D

  

  Documento2 pagine

  Settle 3 D

  Sheril Chandrabose

  Nessuna valutazione finora